What is the difference between an Islamic vs a Christian terrorist?

You're the one who imagines it is two different things. It is your duty to explain, and not dodge. The question is as dumb as asking do you favor Jesus' path to heaven or John the Apostle.

 

So was the battle to overcome Jim Crow and the slave trade. It is a fantasy to say the law can't be made on the basis of religious belief. As a former SCOTUS justice said, we are a religious people, of course there will be overlap. The 1A only prohibits Congress from a establishing a state church, individual states had official churches into the 1820s.

I reject your premise.

To play along with you, you are the same as an Islamist since you want to force your beliefs on others through physical violence.

ALL laws infringe on somebody's idea of liberty, and Christians have the same right to be involved in public policy issues as you do. Your totalitarian impulses are alarming.

Bunk.

So we should ditch our laws against murder. Theocracy is actually defined as rule by priests/clergy, think Iran. In your twisted view Christians voting their conscience is a theocracy. It is rather called democracy.

Voting is hardly an infringement. Jesus had nothing to say on the subject.

And you, by your standard. The victim of your violence doesn't know or care what the motivation is.

You might have a point if 81% of evangelicals didn't vote for Trump, or if they didn't comprise almost half of Romney's vote total, or if they weren't the backbone of the abolitionist movement that was the impetus for the formation of the Republican Party. Remember those folks who transferred their religious convictions into law? I'll grant you that law infringed on the liberty of the slave holders. See Uncle Tom's Cabin, the author of that basically Christian book said the non-religious were mainly on the other side of the issue.

 

I did not claim law could not be made on the basis of religious belief. That does not change the fact that this is a violation of both the founding principles and the constitution. Just because Gov't makes illegitimate law - does not mean this law is not illegitimate.

1) you are completely wrong about 1A - but even if this were not the case it is still a violation the founding principles - you are talking theocracy.

Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience.-- James Madison, explaining to Congress during the House Debate what the First Amendment means to him, 1 Annals of Congress 730 (August 15, 1789), That his conception of "establishment" was quite broad is revealed in his veto as President in 1811 of a bill which in granting land reserved a parcel for a Baptist Church in Salem, Mississippi

The constitution was never intended to cover all specific possible infringements on liberty - Sans the fact that your claim is false - (1A addresses law made on the basis of religious belief directly) - even if it did not, this would not make laws on the basis of religious belief legitimate.

Law and the Constitution are supposed to be interpreted on the basis of the founding principles.

1) Individual liberty is "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't. In other words - Gov't (of its own volition) is to have authority to make "ANY LAW" that messes with individual liberty - never mind law on the basis of some religious belief.

2) That authority comes from "we the people- consent of the governed" as opposed to "Divine Right"/God as was the case in the past.

Jefferson summed it up this way:

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

So your claim on the basis of the founding principles is simply not true.

If Gov't wants to make law messing with individual liberty it must appeal to the people for that authority. There is no authority under either the Constitution or the founding principles to make law on the basis of religious belief - as you claim. This - by definition - is what a Constitutional Republic is - This - by definition is "Republicanism".

The consent required (to mess with liberty) is not 50+1. nor is it "Simple Majority Mandate" - that because some politician gets elected they have some mandate. This is referred to in both Republicanism and Classical Liberalism as "Tyranny of the Majority".

The bar is then "overwhelming" majority - at least 2/3 if not 75% agreement from we the people.

It is overwhelming majority consent which is the bar for legitimacy/ illegitimacy of law.

So if you can round up enough people that agree with you on some law - regardless of the basis of that belief - that law would be legitimate.

Good luck getting 2/3rds majority to agree with a total ban on abortion.

And Yes - I am fully aware that our Gov't makes illegitimate law all the time - this does not change the fact that such law is illegitimate - at least from a Constitutional/founding principle perspective. That covers the "Legal /Constitutional" question. Now to the moral question.

So Yes - you can go out and vote for some law based on religious belief if you like - but is this "Moral" ?

The above was to try to separate the legitimacy question "is law legitimate" from the moral question. Hopefully the "legitimacy" question is resolved as these two questions have been conflated to this point -but they are two separate questions.

This post is long already so I will cover the moral question in another post.

 

I never try to force my religious beliefs on others through physical violence. The Islamist - by definition - justifies violations of liberty on the basis of religious belief. It is false to claim that law based on other rational is "Islamist".

You misunderstand (again) what essential liberty is. Rights - essential liberty - ends where the nose of another begins. As per my previous post - the legitimate authority of Gov't is protection from direct harm - murder, rape, theft and so on. This has nothing to do with essential liberty.

Hopefully your confusion in relation to pure Democracy vs Constitutional Republic was cleared up in the previous post. If not - go reread the definition posted.

Now to the question of whether or not agreeing with law messing with essential liberty on the basis of religious belief is "Moral".

Belief in freedom is not belief in freedom "only for things you agree with" - whether it be on the basis of religious belief or other justification. Everyone believes in that. Belief in freedom is belief for freedom for things you disagree with.

And no - we are not talking about direct harm crimes such as murder, rape, theft and so on. That is not essential liberty.

Your claim that Jesus had nothing to say on this issue is not true. Law - by definition - is forcing your belief on another human through physical violence.

Jesus has much to say about this. "Let Ye who is without Sin Cast the first stone" "Judge not lest you be Judged" "take log out of own eye before trying to pick speck out of brothers" "Love Neighbor as thyself".

These are all restatements of the principle "the Rock" on which Jesus based his teachings = the Golden Rule = do unto others as you would have done to you/ Treat others as you would be treated.

So then - If you don't want others forcing their religious beliefs on you though physical violence - do not do this to others.

The interesting thing about this rule is that it is also found in the Social Contract - Construct by which "We the People" give authority to Gov't.

We then have a happy union between secular justification with religious justification = Both are based on the same rule/ principle.

Why is it that you are so hell bent on violating this rule ? If find this troubling on both a legal but a moral basis - and on the basis of logic and reason.

 

You can't answer. Again.
Why not?
How does Saul say one gets to heaven?
How does Jesus say one gets to heaven?
Are you claiming they say the path to heaven is the same? This is a yes or no.
I am not imagining anything, but I do need clarification.
You seem to be well versed in the bible, so I am hoping you can tell us each person's words to reach heaven. Can you or can you not?
Are you well versed in the bible, especially the NT or not?

You asked me if I had any questions, I do. Can you help out?

 

You are the one dodging - It is a simple question you were asked - what does Saul say is the path to heaven.

What's more is that you probably do not even know the path that Jesus gives.

 

What is the difference between an Islamic vs a Christian terrorist?
The only difference is who they select as victims. Otherwise, they are the same. They are both extremist religious zealots who lack the ability to show or feel compassion for anyone who disagrees with their religious views.

 

Our traditional history doesn't record Jesus being married, but the Gnostic Gospels, which were possibly written by those closest to Jesus & knew him best, refer to Jesus' wife Mary.

 

He has run away from the thread.
He can't even answer 2 simple questions, where the answers are written in the bible.

 

Can you answer those 2 simple questions?

 

Okay this is going to rub a lot of nerves: Muhammad is not the Islamic equivalent of Jesus Christ. Muhammad was not only a prophet but a statesman and military leader as well. He forged a nation out of a bunch of pagan tribes at war with each other. Jesus Christ on the other hand did not. He said "My Kingdom is not of this world". Muhammad was not Allah incarnate. He was not a "sinless sacrifice" for the sins of mankind because that was never his mission to begin with. Muhammad was more akin to old testament prophets such as Moses or Abraham rather than Jesus Christ.

 

The same way Jesus said. I know you imagine there is some difference between the two, that is bunk. Your premise is rejected. Perhaps you and your buddy dairyair should present your novel argument that they are different theologies.

 

True, but both are considered the founders of their religions.

Interesting even Muhammad couldn't be sure of his salvation, shouldn't that make Muslims worried?

 

Aren't you going to ask the same for the apostles, LOL?

 

https://www.gotquestions.org/Gnostic-gospels.html

"So, what are we to make of the Gnostic gospels? Should some or all of them be in the Bible? No, they should not. First, as pointed out above, the Gnostic gospels are forgeries, fraudulently written in the names of the Apostles in order to give them a legitimacy in the early church. Thankfully, the early church fathers were nearly unanimous in recognizing the Gnostic gospels as promoting false teachings about virtually every key Christian doctrine. There are countless contradictions between the Gnostic gospels and the true Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Gnostic gospels can be a good source for the study of early Christian heresies, but they should be rejected outright as not belonging in the Bible and not representing the genuine Christian faith."

 

No, you try to force your secular humanist beliefs on others through physical violence. As far as your other arguments as best I can make sense of them, we disagree. What matters isn't what we think but what five SCOTUS justices think. Since 2016 I have much more confidence in that court.

 

Are they posting here?
Did you not ask Me, if I had any questions? Yes you did.
I asked you 2 questions.
Several times now. The same 2 questions.
What does Saul state as the path to salvation/heaven?
What does Jesus state as the path to salvation/heaven?

 

No. Muslims pray to Allah (God) for forgiveness.

 

Jesus came more as a reformer than someone starting a new religion. The Pharisees that he condemned were so wrapped up in the letter of the law that they had forgotten the spirit of the law. The first group of Christians after Jesus died saw themselves as a sect of Judaism and kept Jewish law. At first they only accepted other Jews. However as the Christian body began expanding and accepting non-Jewish converts, it began to distance itself from its parent religion. The person responsible for laying the foundation of Christian doctrine wasn't Jesus, it was Paul (one of his disciples). That is why it is sometimes referred to as Pauline Christianity.

 

The same way, faith in Christ's atoning death on the cross. You've hijacked this thread on your false premise that Jesus and Paul had two different theologies, its up to you to present that evidence. Or maybe start a another thread here on that topic for those who care, I'm not one of them.

 

Nonsense, Jesus declared His divinity and sacrificial death on the cross for our salvation, just as Paul did. He told the very religious Jew Nicodemus that he must be born again. Jesus' emphasis was primarily to Jews ("To the Jew first......"), while Paul's was primarily to gentiles, hence for example Paul discussed homosexuality while Jesus didn't. How could the first Christians see themselves as a part of Judaism when the believed Jesus to be divine, the predicted Messiah, and that He died and rose from the dead for our salvation? Those aren't exactly the beliefs of Judaism, then or now. Paul did rightly rebuke Peter and the ones who wanted gentiles to live under Jewish law.


Galatians 2:11-21
Paul Rebukes Peter at Antioch
11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him in public, because he was clearly wrong. 12 Before some men who had been sent by James arrived there, Peter had been eating with the Gentile believers. But after these men arrived, he drew back and would not eat with the Gentiles, because he was afraid of those who were in favor of circumcising them. 13 The other Jewish believers also started acting like cowards along with Peter; and even Barnabas was swept along by their cowardly action. 14 When I saw that they were not walking a straight path in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you have been living like a Gentile, not like a Jew. How, then, can you try to force Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Jews and Gentiles Are Saved by Faith
15 Indeed, we are Jews by birth and not “Gentile sinners,” as they are called. 16 Yet we know that a person is put right with God only through faith in Jesus Christ, never by doing what the Law requires. We, too, have believed in Christ Jesus in order to be put right with God through our faith in Christ, and not by doing what the Law requires. For no one is put right with God by doing what the Law requires. 17 If, then, as we try to be put right with God by our union with Christ, we are found to be sinners, as much as the Gentiles are—does this mean that Christ is serving the cause of sin? By no means! 18 If I start to rebuild the system of Law that I tore down, then I show myself to be someone who breaks the Law. 19 So far as the Law is concerned, however, I am dead—killed by the Law itself—in order that I might live for God. I have been put to death with Christ on his cross, 20 so that it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. This life that I live now, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave his life for me. 21 I refuse to reject the grace of God. But if a person is put right with God through the Law, it means that Christ died for nothing!

 

What premise is rejected - and how is this premise rejected. It is not some big secret that there are two different salvation formulations that have been derived from the NT - never mind comparison to the old.

There is nothing novel about this fact. This is one of the major separations between Catholic/Orthodox and Protestantism. The latter accepts Sola Fide (salvation by faith alone) while the former rejects Sola Fide.

You claiming to have "rejected" / disproven and well established fact is pure nonsense and and abject denial - akin to denying that water is wet.

 

No I don't - you are blubbering falsehoods again in attempted to apologize for your Islamist beliefs. I understand the difference between 1) having a belief and 2) forcing that belief on others through physical violence.

Not only are your beliefs "Evil" with respect to the founding principles - they are also an affront to morality and the teachings of Jesus.

 

Which is the same thing you do when you vote and opine, Islamist.

LOL, I'll let you know when I want advice on Christianity from an atheist. Think I'll go over to an atheist forum and explain what atheism really means.

 

Do tell, this is news to me.